After further review: NFL

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Let's say the officials do lose sight of the ball and that there's no means for review. In the basketball situation you have either a 2- or 3-point goal; if the ball went in the basket those are your only choices. In the football situation described, let's say nobody was sure whether the ball in possession touched the plane of the goal line. What do you rule then? The ball has to be spotted somewhere. You can't simply adopt a rule of thumb that says don't award a touchdown unless you see it, because if it's not a touchdown then where does your rule of thumb say to put the ball? So the officials have to take their best guess of where the ball wound up, and "in the end zone" should be given just as much consideration as anywhere in the field of play.

Robert

Makes sense. Please understand, I don't have a dog in this fight. Being fair to both parties is what's at issue for me here. Penalizing the defense awarding a score when you can't be sure or that seems doubtful doesn't seem to fit either. BTW, the end result of the play would have been a turnover. Isn't there a rule that says you can't fumble the ball forward into the endzone?

If the official would have come together and consulted with the official in the endzone or near the middle to determine if the player had control, would have sold it for me because now you're considering every possible angle. The official straddling the line can verify that the ball crossed the plane, what he can't confirm is if the player had control when the ball crossed the plane. It's all good, I realized it's not an exact science. Something so important, it just seems like at a minimum, there should have been a conference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Old School

Makes sense. Please understand, I don't have a dog in this fight. Being fair to both parties is what's at issue for me here. Penalizing the defense awarding a score when you can't be sure or that seems doubtful doesn't seem to fit either. BTW, the end result of the play would have been a turnover. Isn't there a rule that says you can't fumble the ball forward into the endzone?

If the official would have come together and consulted with the official in the endzone or near the middle to determine if the player had control, would have sold it for me because now you're considering every possible angle. The official straddling the line can verify that the ball crossed the plane, what he can't confirm is if the player had control when the ball crossed the plane. It's all good, I realized it's not an exact science. Something so important, it just seems like at a minimum, there should have been a conference.

First, the default on a replay situation if you "can't tell" is to go with the official's original call, which is as it should be - he was in the right position on this play, and the camera wasn't.

But generally, you seem to disagree with the default position if awarding a score if you're not sure. In cases where you aren't sure (these better be few and far between), you do your best. You don't default toward one team or the other. Your assumption that you shouldn't award a score if you don't see one makes sense, but your corollary is even worse - awarding a turnover if you don't see one. If you're not SURE the ball was loose before it crossed the end line, you can't call it a loose ball.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But generally, you seem to disagree with the default position if awarding a score if you're not sure. In cases where you aren't sure (these better be few and far between), you do your best. You don't default toward one team or the other. Your assumption that you shouldn't award a score if you don't see one makes sense, but your corollary is even worse - awarding a turnover if you don't see one. If you're not SURE the ball was loose before it crossed the end line, you can't call it a loose ball (either).

I totally agree. Really puts the official in a tough spot. I would hate to be the calling official on this one. The more I talk to you guys about this play, the more I am leaning towards a good call. You got to make your mind up and stick with it, which is what he did.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Old School

I totally agree. Really puts the official in a tough spot. I would hate to be the calling official on this one. The more I talk to you guys about this play, the more I am leaning towards a good call. You got to make your mind up and stick with it, which is what he did.

If you are a football official, this is a very common call. You are making a bigger deal out of this call than I bet the calling official made. And you keep talking about how "you have to be confident" and I am sure that official had seen similar plays multiple times whether he experienced it or seen it on tape. This is a very basic and common type of play where you have to determine if the player broke the plane. The fumble might not have even been an issue at that time for that official.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

First, the default on a replay situation if you "can't tell" is to go with the official's original call, which is as it should be - he was in the right position on this play, and the camera wasn't.

But generally, you seem to disagree with the default position if awarding a score if you're not sure. In cases where you aren't sure (these better be few and far between), you do your best. You don't default toward one team or the other. Your assumption that you shouldn't award a score if you don't see one makes sense, but your corollary is even worse - awarding a turnover if you don't see one. If you're not SURE the ball was loose before it crossed the end line, you can't call it a loose ball.

Rugby Union has a "default" call in a case somewhat analogous to what's been raised. In case of doubt as to whether the ball was touched down by the attacking team in goal, it's a 5-meter scrum, attacking side to put the ball in. But you couldn't translate that literally to North American football, moving the ball back that far in case of doubt as to a TD. There's no really good point to default to.

Robert

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Old School

Penalizing the defense awarding a score when you can't be sure or that seems doubtful doesn't seem to fit either.

If you ask the covering official I'm confident that he'll tell you he was sure. The fact that the play was reviewed and not overturned lends credence to his decision.

Originally Posted by Old School

If the official would have come together and consulted with the official in the endzone or near the middle to determine if the player had control, would have sold it for me because now you're considering every possible angle.

Back to your first point, the official was on the line and in position to judge whether the ball was in player possession and across the goal line. If he was unsure he would have asked for help.